Drata vs OneTrust: Compliance Automation Comparison

Drata vs OneTrust comes down to scope: Drata is built for audit readiness and continuous compliance evidence for common security frameworks, while OneTrust is a broader privacy, GRC, and third-party risk platform that can support more complex regulatory posture and enterprise governance needs. Your choice should follow risk appetite, required control coverage, and program maturity.

Key takeaways:

• Drata fits teams optimizing control effectiveness evidence and audit workflows for SOC 2/ISO-style programs.
• OneTrust fits organizations needing broader GRC/privacy + third-party risk management across multiple business units and regulators.
• Expect faster time-to-value with Drata for compliance automation, and more configuration effort with OneTrust for a defensible, enterprise-wide program.

CISOs and Compliance Officers usually ask “drata vs onetrust” when they’re trying to balance two different paths to a defensible program. One path emphasizes continuous control monitoring, tight evidence collection, and audit readiness for a defined set of frameworks. The other emphasizes breadth: third-party risk management, privacy obligations, governance workflows, and the ability to standardize risk decisions across lines of business.

In our experience evaluating these tools, the mistake isn’t picking the “wrong” product. The mistake is mismatching tool scope to risk appetite and regulatory posture. If you need clean, repeatable evidence that controls are operating effectively for an upcoming SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 cycle, compliance automation can remove weeks of manual work. If you need to prove to bank examiners, EU regulators, or internal audit that third-party risk is governed end-to-end, you’ll care more about intake, tiering, issues management, approvals, and mapping risk decisions to policy.

Below is a practical comparison of Drata and OneTrust, focused on what each is verifiably built to do, what it tends to cost in time and effort, and how teams use them in real programs.

Side-by-side comparison: Drata vs OneTrust

Dimension	Drata	OneTrust
Primary job to be done	Compliance automation and audit readiness through evidence collection and control monitoring 1	Broad governance platform spanning privacy, GRC, and third-party risk workflows 2
Best-fit operating model	Lean compliance/security teams that need repeatable evidence and auditor-friendly artifacts	Multi-team enterprises needing standardized governance, approvals, and risk decisions across business units
Third-party risk management depth	Not positioned as a full TPRM suite; teams typically pair it with separate intake/questionnaire tooling if TPDD is a primary driver	Purpose-built modules for third-party risk and assessments, typically supporting intake, tiering, questionnaires, and remediation workflow 3
Compliance automation	Continuous evidence collection via integrations and control monitoring is central to the product 4	Can support compliance programs, but typically through broader GRC workflow and content; evidence automation is not the core value proposition across the platform
Workflow configuration	More opinionated audit-readiness workflows; less “build-your-own-GRC”	Highly configurable workflows across modules, with corresponding admin and governance overhead
Reporting and governance	Audit-oriented reporting and artifacts for common frameworks	Executive and program governance reporting across privacy/GRC/TPRM, assuming you implement consistent taxonomy and data hygiene
Typical implementation motion	Connect systems, map controls, collect evidence, run audits	Stand up governance model, configure workflows, align risk taxonomy, deploy modules incrementally
Enterprise procurement fit	Strong for security compliance teams buying a focused product	Strong for enterprise procurement standardizing governance tooling and consolidating point solutions

Drata: capabilities, where it fits, and tradeoffs

What Drata is strong at (verifiable scope)

Drata positions itself around compliance automation: connecting to common cloud and identity systems, collecting evidence, and supporting audit readiness for security frameworks. Teams we’ve worked with adopt Drata when the immediate need is demonstrating control effectiveness over time, with less dependence on spreadsheets and ad hoc evidence chasing.

Where Drata tends to perform well:

• Audit readiness workflows: Centralizing evidence, control narratives, and audit requests in one place aligns well to SOC 2 and ISO-style cycles.
• Continuous monitoring mindset: If your risk appetite requires faster detection of control drift (access changes, device posture, cloud misconfig), Drata’s model lines up with continuous compliance.
• Security team ownership: Drata often works best when Security/Compliance owns the tool and can move without a large cross-functional governance rollout.

Drata: genuine cons (product-level and program-level)

You should plan around these realities:

1. Scope is narrower than full GRC/TPRM platforms. If your primary driver is third-party due diligence at scale (tiering, inherent risk scoring, issue lifecycle, contracts), Drata is not positioned as the system of record for TPRM.
2. Framework and audit fit can drive the roadmap. If you need deep regulatory mapping for multiple regulators with institution-specific control libraries, a compliance-automation-first product can require supplemental GRC structure outside the tool.
3. Integration coverage varies by your stack. Drata’s value depends on connecting the right systems. If your core evidence lives in niche ITSM, IAM, or on-prem tools not covered by standard connectors, you may still do manual evidence work.

When Drata is the better approach

Choose Drata when:

• Your team is small-to-mid sized, and you need faster time-to-evidence for SOC 2/ISO 27001.
• Your regulatory posture is primarily customer-driven assurance (e.g., enterprise buyers) rather than examiner-led operational risk programs.
• You want a defensible program focused on proving control operation, with clear audit trails and standardized artifacts.

OneTrust: capabilities, where it fits, and tradeoffs

What OneTrust is strong at (verifiable scope)

OneTrust positions as a platform across privacy, GRC, and third-party risk, with modules that support assessment workflows, risk registers, and governance processes. In practice, teams use OneTrust when they need a shared system across Legal, Privacy, Security, Procurement, and Compliance.

Where OneTrust tends to perform well:

• Third-party risk workflows: Central intake, tiering, assessment distribution, and remediation workflows align to mature TPDD programs ⁵.
• Enterprise governance: If your risk appetite requires consistent approvals, exceptions, and policy attestation across business units, OneTrust’s platform approach fits.
• Privacy + security coordination: Organizations with GDPR/UK GDPR, DPA requirements, and security assurance often want privacy and third-party risk under one governance umbrella.

OneTrust: genuine cons (product-level and program-level)

Expect these constraints:

1. Configuration and data model effort is real. OneTrust can be highly configurable, but that means you need governance: risk taxonomy, tiering model, control mappings, and role design. Without that, reporting and consistency degrade.
2. Module sprawl risk. Because OneTrust is a platform with multiple products, teams can end up with partial deployments where ownership is unclear and workflows fragment across modules.
3. Time-to-value depends on operating model maturity. If Procurement, Security, and Legal do not agree on intake gates, SLA targets, and escalation rules, the tool cannot create alignment by itself.

When OneTrust is the better approach

Choose OneTrust when:

• You’re an enterprise with multiple risk owners and need standardized governance.
• Your regulatory posture demands auditable risk decisions beyond security controls, including privacy and third-party oversight.
• You’re consolidating tools and need a system of record for third-party risk decisions, exceptions, and remediation tracking.

Cost and resource considerations (without inventing numbers)

Public, one-size pricing is not consistently posted for either Drata or OneTrust; both are commonly sold via quote-based plans depending on scope and modules. Treat cost as two buckets: subscription and internal labor.

Subscription model expectations

• Drata: Commonly packaged around compliance automation and supported frameworks, with pricing influenced by company size, frameworks, and integration needs ⁶.
• OneTrust: Commonly priced by modules (privacy, GRC, third-party risk) and scale of usage. The commercial design can reward consolidation, but it can also expand if you add modules midstream.

Internal resourcing you should budget

• Drata internal cost drivers: control owners responding to evidence requests, integration setup, and keeping systems clean enough for automation to work.
• OneTrust internal cost drivers: program manager/admin for configuration, process owners to define taxonomy and workflows, and reporting governance.

Rule of thumb from teams we’ve worked with: Drata is easier to staff as a compliance team tool; OneTrust often needs a named platform owner plus cross-functional process owners.

Implementation complexity and realistic timelines

Timelines depend more on readiness than vendor promises.

Drata implementation reality

• Fastest path: connect core systems (SSO/IAM, cloud, endpoint, ticketing), map controls, assign owners, start collecting evidence.
• Where it slows down: unclear control ownership, poor identity hygiene, and exceptions that require compensating controls.

A realistic plan is “initial evidence visibility quickly, audit-grade maturity over a few control cycles.”

OneTrust implementation reality

• Fastest path: deploy a focused module (often third-party risk) with a minimal viable workflow: intake form, tiering, questionnaire, remediation, approvals.
• Where it slows down: debating tiering models, control libraries, and handoffs between Procurement/Security/Legal. The more business units you include, the more change management becomes the critical path.

A realistic plan is “phase delivery by workflow,” not “launch the whole platform.”

Compliance and regulatory mapping (what to map, not tool claims)

Neither tool “makes you compliant” with OCC/FFIEC/EBA guidance. They help you operationalize evidence and workflow. Your program still needs documented governance and risk decisions.

Here’s how teams commonly map their workflows to well-known guidance:

• OCC Bulletin 2013-29 (Third-Party Relationships): Map OneTrust’s third-party inventory, risk segmentation, due diligence workflows, and ongoing monitoring tasks to the OCC expectations for life-cycle oversight. Drata may support the security control evidence portion for your own environment, but OCC 2013-29 is broader than internal controls.
• FFIEC guidance (e.g., FFIEC IT Examination Handbook): Use OneTrust to document third-party oversight processes, and use Drata to maintain evidence that internal IT controls are operating. Examiners will still ask for governance: approvals, exceptions, and accountability.
• NIST SP 800-161r1 (2022), Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management: If supply chain risk is central, OneTrust typically aligns better to intake, tiering, and third-party lifecycle workflow. Drata aligns better to proving your internal control environment as part of overall posture.
• EBA Guidelines on outsourcing arrangements (EBA/GL/2019/02): EBA focuses on governance, register of outsourcing, risk assessment, and ongoing oversight. OneTrust’s platform approach usually fits the register/workflow side; Drata supports evidence for internal controls that third parties may rely on.
• ISO/IEC 27001:2022: Drata aligns naturally to ISO audit readiness and evidence collection for ISMS controls. OneTrust can support governance workflows, risk registers, and broader GRC processes, depending on implementation.

Real-world scenarios: which tool fits best

1. Series B SaaS, SOC 2 Type II in 6 months, 2-person security team
   Drata tends to fit: fast evidence collection, clear audit workflow, fewer moving parts.

2. Mid-market healthcare tech with HIPAA + growing third-party footprint
   If third-party assessments and BAAs are the pain point, OneTrust’s third-party risk workflows often fit better. Drata can still support internal control evidence for audits and customer assurance.

3. Global enterprise with privacy office, procurement center of excellence, and multiple regulators
   OneTrust usually fits the operating model: standard intake, approvals, and cross-functional workflows. Drata may still be used by a security assurance team for specific audits, but it is less likely to be the enterprise system of record.

Decision matrix (use-case based; no one-size answer)

Your primary constraint	Bias toward Drata	Bias toward OneTrust
Need audit-ready evidence fast for SOC 2/ISO	Central product value	Possible, but usually not the core driver
Need third-party lifecycle workflow as the backbone of the program	Typically requires another tool/process	Core fit for many deployments
Governance spans security + privacy + procurement	Possible, but tends to fragment	Platform approach supports shared ownership
Low appetite for admin overhead	More opinionated, simpler rollout	Configurability requires platform ownership
Need enterprise-wide standardization	Harder without broader GRC layer	Common reason to buy

Frequently Asked Questions

Is Drata a third-party risk management (TPRM) tool like OneTrust?

Drata is primarily positioned for compliance automation and audit readiness. OneTrust offers dedicated third-party risk modules and broader governance workflows, which usually map more directly to TPDD lifecycle management.

Can OneTrust replace compliance automation tools for SOC 2 evidence collection?

OneTrust can support compliance governance, but evidence automation is not the core positioning across the platform. If your success metric is continuous evidence capture from technical systems, Drata is typically the more direct fit.

Which is better for a defensible program under OCC Bulletin 2013-29?

OCC 2013-29 is lifecycle-focused third-party oversight, so teams often need a system of record for third-party inventory, due diligence, and ongoing monitoring. OneTrust generally aligns better to those workflows; Drata aligns to demonstrating your internal control effectiveness.

What implementation mistake causes the most pain with OneTrust?

Skipping taxonomy and ownership. If you do not define tiering criteria, risk definitions, workflow owners, and escalation rules up front, you will get inconsistent assessments and weak reporting.

What implementation mistake causes the most pain with Drata?

Expecting automation to compensate for messy systems. If identity, device management, or ticketing processes are inconsistent, the evidence stream will still require manual cleanup and compensating controls.

Footnotes

1. Drata product positioning and documentation

2. OneTrust product positioning across its modules

3. OneTrust third-party risk materials

4. Drata’s compliance automation messaging

5. OneTrust third-party risk module descriptions

6. vendor sales-led pricing approach visible on most compliance automation vendors’ sites